Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	First, I would like to offer my thanks to the cross-party group of right hon. and hon. Members who originally sponsored the Bill, and to colleagues who have taken the trouble to be here today. I know only too well that being here on a Friday is not always desperately convenient for hon. Members. I would like to thank the many companies and business groups that supported and promoted the measures, including the National Farmers Union and the Micropower Council. I should like to thank the Public Bill Office, which contributed its secret ministry, and the redoubtable Mr. Ron Bailey, who has performed his usual wonders.
	I should like to thank the House of Commons Library, which produced a very useful note on the Bill, but I have to say that it contains a glaring error. It says that the measures apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, whereas clause 7(2) makes it clear that they apply only to England, so anyone who was nervous about that can relax. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and his colleagues—and not only those in his Department but others, too—for working hard to progress the debate on this green energy Bill. There is at last cross-party agreement—something that I have long sought—on the need for Government action to put in place measures to liberate the pent-up ingenuity, creativity and capital of businesses and markets, and the public's pent-up enthusiasm to engage with delivering real power to the people by decentralising the way in which we create and use energy in this country.
	Time is the most precious commodity on a Friday, and private Members' Bills are fragile vessels in the face of time. I therefore intend to keep my remarks relatively brief, and I implore others to do likewise, despite any temptation to the contrary. Besides, there are other Bills on the Order Paper that certainly merit debate and discussion, so I will resist the obvious temptation to use this opportunity to repeat at length my warnings about the dangers of climate change, and my comments about the opportunities created by the need to come to terms with climate change, and the threat and challenge that confronts this generation globally. This generation will have to deal with the problem of climate change; if we fail, our children and grandchildren will be not only amazed but appalled, and rightly unforgiving. However, may I just mention a new initiative, the Prince's Rainforests Project launched by the Prince of Wales, which is enormously welcome? I urge everybody who has access to a computer to go on to its website, and to click on the relevant buttons to demonstrate support for that very fine project.
	The opportunities before us are enormous. Rebuilding the economy as if the earth mattered is an enormous task, but it brings together an array of interlocking benefits—not just sustainable economic growth and safe green jobs, but enhanced global and national security, improved social justice at home and abroad, and a more thriving and robust natural environment. I think that the whole House will agree that bringing those things together is a worthy task, but it will require vision and courage, relentless attention and, above all, hope. In that mighty context, this little private Member's Bill may seem a trifling affair. It is indeed a modest Bill—modesty befits private Members' Bills—but I believe that if it succeeds, it will play its part in helping the clean energy sector to grow, and helping all of us citizens to find it easier to play our part in the green revolution.
	Let us take a quick look at what the Bill contains. Clause 1 defines the various terms used. Many of them originate in existing Acts, and these definitions have been adopted, where appropriate. Clause 2 defines the term "green energy" and specifies that the principal purpose of the Bill is to promote it. It includes energy efficiency because the energy that we do not use is the greenest energy of all. Green energy is defined as
	"energy generated from renewable or small-scale low-carbon local sources".
	An important point about this definition is that it includes efficient small-scale district heating systems and micro combined heat and power systems.

Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has an immensely distinguished record in this matter. He is right. The Bill is not just about being green—being good for the environment and the natural world. It is about being good for human beings, especially the least well off, who stand to gain most from such measures.
	Clause 3 calls for the Government's current microgeneration strategy to be reviewed. The present strategy was drawn up following the Energy Act 2004. It has worked quite well, but there is general agreement that it needs to be updated. The Government accepted that last year and are, I hope, already working on a new strategy. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that subject later in the debate. As industry sources have said,
	"If we updated the microgeneration strategy, this would focus collective action, lead to investment and help create a whole new generation of jobs in retrofitting energy efficiency and microgeneration."
	I hope the Minister will also clarify the Government's position on implementing the new feed-in tariff system for small-scale electricity generation, which offer clear rewards to people who go green. As the experience of Germany has demonstrated, this reform alone has the capacity to engage the public's imagination, attract major investment and create tens of thousands of jobs.
	Clause 4 requires the Government to review permitted development orders, with the purpose of removing unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles, which currently impede the installation of green energy measures in non-residential and agricultural premises. An example of the problem that the clause is intended to address is that it is currently possible for a head teacher to install a small wind turbine on his home, generally without having to get planning permission, but impossible for him to do it at his school, which is rather silly and an anomaly that the clause seeks to put right.
	The inclusion of agricultural premises is, I hope, significant for the farming industry. The opportunity for farmers in this context is immense. A report from the Carbon Trust last year suggested that the rural potential of small-scale wind power is more than four times that of the potential in urban areas. But if we can harness the potential of anaerobic digestion on farms, linking biogas up to the gas grid, the consequences could be hugely beneficial as a result of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from farming and creating sustainable energy from waste.
	However, I fully accept that we cannot allow a free for all. There must be safeguards against proposals that threaten to create noise nuisance or visual blight. It may well be that any review will need to consider a range of planning options to promote microgeneration projects on agricultural and non-domestic premises. The important thing is that such projects are generally promoted and not impeded by Government policy.
	Clause 5 relates to permitted development rights in domestic premises. Considerable progress has been made on this issue by the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006. I had the pleasure of supporting that Bill during its progress. The Act removed much of the hassle involved in installing solar thermal or photovoltaic technologies in domestic premises, but it did not extend to micro wind installations or air source heat pumps. The Government have said that they want to put that right, and the Bill aims to do just that.
	Planning obstacles, whether valid or not, have proved a major barrier to small- scale wind technology in particular. I have heard of one company that has 25,000 applications snarled up in the planning process. But again, I am not advocating a complete free for all.
	The schedule sets out criteria that I recommend to the Government when considering these issues. In particular, it contains safeguards relating to noise, visual intrusion and buildings protected for heritage reasons. Perhaps most importantly, it requires microgeneration installations to comply with a certification scheme. This should deal with the problem that has arisen with wind turbines, for example, which have been installed with worthy intentions in places where they are largely ineffective because there is not enough wind.
	Clause 6 is intended to encourage the Government to consider the anomaly whereby businesses and home owners who improve their property by installing green energy units may be penalised later by higher non-domestic rates or council tax valuations. I look forward to the Minister's comments on whether he believes there is a contradiction in relevant Government policy.
	Finally, this is, as I said, a modest Bill, but I hope it is a helpful one. It brings its own array of interlocking benefits. It is meant to be helpful to industry and investors, who are urgently looking for clear and simple support from legislation affecting their businesses. It is meant to be helpful to the farming industry in developing its potential as a significant source of energy generation in rural areas. It is intended to be helpful to people living in fuel poverty, and to all who are struggling to pay for electricity and heating, and who are dependent on inefficient fossil fuels; helpful to all who want to play their part in reducing CO2 emissions; and helpful to the Government in meeting their own targets on fuel poverty, renewable energy and climate change. I commend the Bill to the House.

Alan Whitehead: I am encouraged by the Government's commitment to renewable energy in general in the range of recent new instruments to incentivise renewable energy and small-scale renewable energy output, and the commitments that have been made and are being made to the development of renewable and sustainable heat and the role of energy efficiency in the development of a sustainable renewable energy strategy. A number of the issues that have arisen from private Members' Bills are being addressed by such commitments. It is unlikely that the Minister will give a blanket undertaking this morning that every clause of every private Member's Bill relating to heat, energy and renewable electricity will be implemented tomorrow, but it is fair to say, without any hint of partisan discussion on the issue, that there is a sea change in ensuring that the impediments to the development of renewable and small-scale sustainable energy, which have existed over a period of time and which hon. Members have through, among other measures, private Members' Bills, sought to overcome, are by means of such devices and commitments being substantially addressed.
	However, it is true that substantial impediments remain, which come in a number of shapes and sizes. We have the impediment of the fact that renewable energy devices are, unlike traditional forms of energy delivery, up front capital intensive. Substantial capital is required to install them and thereafter the revenue consequences are slight. Once installed, the earning capacity of such devices, are significant, and the introduction of the feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive, will, I hope—I remain optimistic on this matter—ensure that the certainty for the capital investment that is required in those devices can be enhanced. Nevertheless, it is still true that to suggest to a small business or a household that they put up front between £4,000 and £12,000 to install such a device on the understanding that, eventually, there will be a payback, when they have been used to paying a quarterly electricity or gas bill for their heating supply, represents a considerable turnaround in how people view their arrangements with their energy suppliers. That impediment might be overcome by the introduction of leasing arrangements for microgeneration devices, so that the capital cost can be avoided and the cost of the running those devices can be rolled up in the revenue stream that is generated as those devices are used over time.
	A second impediment relates to the connection of such devices to the grid and, in particular, to the distribution network. Indeed, it would be rather a good idea if Ofgem and the grid operators had a good look at the extent to which the theoretical backwash of energy that should enter the grid from, in particular, renewable electricity devices, in practice never gets near the transmission network but simply goes around the distribution network. If we end up with billing arrangements under which small-scale energy generation, as part of the energy mix, is rolled up with the total cost of transmission and distribution, a significant impediment to microgeneration development will remain.
	In the past, such impediments were considered fairly insignificant, because, then, it was thought that microgeneration would have a fairly insignificant role to play in the future. However, given the renewable energy strategy that is developing, and the ambition for microgeneration and small-scale generation to become a part of overall renewable energy generation targets, it is far from small-scale in practice. If we also consider the indicative proposals in the renewable energy strategy for reaching the 15 per cent. target for renewable energy—not for renewable electricity—as part of the energy mix by 2020, we see that out of that 15 per cent., it is proposed that no less than 9 per cent., which, according to my maths is about 1 per cent. of the total energy supply, should be supplied by solar heat.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) mentioned the importance of solar heat and solar thermal technology, and in the renewables strategy solar heat plays a substantial role. When we break that down, it means a large number of small installations on the roofs of houses and small-scale commercial properties, and in agricultural areas and so on—all of which individually make a small contribution but collectively add up to the proposed large contribution to the strategy. That would probably mean several hundred thousand installations on the basis that, currently, we install a few thousand per year throughout the country. That represents a quantum change in the rate of such installations, and in their distribution throughout different sectors of domestic energy, small business and agricultural environments.
	The clauses in the Bill that seek to remove the third impediment to such installations, the planning arrangements, are therefore potentially very important and valuable. Those impediments have largely been removed in terms of solar thermal technology, but, for other important technologies such as micro wind and, particularly, air source heat pumps, which I believe will also make a substantial contribution to the 15 per cent. energy target by 2020, the impediments remain.
	Heat pumps, incidentally, are scheduled and projected to provide some 4 per cent. of the 15 per cent. energy target. Again, my maths partially elude me, but that represents about 0.5 per cent. of the total future renewable energy supply, and it would also be based on a large number of small installations that, collectively, would make up the total. Therefore, the idea that they should fall within the general permitted development order is, as far as domestic properties are concerned, very important, but the Bill goes much further by clarifying the environment, as far as such planning is concerned, in the commercial and agricultural sectors.
	On occasions, we have talked about microgeneration as if it were all about putting a small turbine, a small solar thermal device or a solar panel or two on our roofs. However, some of the biggest gains in the not-too-distant future will relate to small and medium-sized enterprises enhancing the insulation of their properties and putting money-earning renewable energy devices on their roofs, around their premises or within the curtilage of their agricultural land to enhance their businesses and secure their energy supplies.
	There is an impediment, however, because most small business rent their premises, so there is no enormous incentive either for them or for the landlords of such properties to equip themselves with such devices. The Bill offers some succour, however, in the clauses relating to council tax payments. In Committee, I hope that the business rates for small-scale commercial premises will be considered, because they represent an important means of removing a number of disincentives to the installation of renewable devices.
	Overall, the ambition that we now properly have on microgeneration and small-scale generation is real and attainable—attainable, provided that we diagnose the future impediments to the imposition of such energy production devices and systematically ensure that those impediments are ameliorated or eliminated from the system. The Energy Saving Trust recently projected that, by 2050, 30 to 40 per cent. of our overall energy supplies could arise from distributed, small-scale renewable energy at local, district, housing and small-scale commercial property levels.
	My concern is that that ambition, which could play such a key role in the provision of our future energy supplies, could be tripped up by impediments that we can easily remove. The Bill goes a long way towards removing a number of those impediments, and I commend it for that. If, in a few years' time, we get the level of renewable energy generation in our communities and homes which is not only desirable but essential as far as our energy mix is concerned, we will be able to look back and say that this Bill played a part in making the change. For that, we should thank the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).

Gregory Barker: It is a great pleasure to speak from the Front Bench in support of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). He is not only my former boss, but my enduring mentor and inspiration. Since my arrival in Parliament in 2001, he has been an extraordinary influence on the whole debate about not only microgeneration, but climate change and the broader importance of the environment. He has worked as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee and, as shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he pulled the Conservative party on to a new agenda. That will be seen as a historic turning point, not only in the fortunes of the Conservative party but in the general debate about such issues in the United Kingdom. His gravitas has meant that he has been able to muster an impressive consensus across the Chamber, and not just today; during the preparation of the Bill, he has tapped parts of the political establishment that others would struggle to reach. I congratulate him on this excellent Bill.
	I will not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), but then I do not have his technical expertise. He is an expert on these issues and I hope that the Minister listened carefully to all his comments because he made sound points, particularly about the detail of the Bill.
	If I had to encapsulate what the Bill is about, I would say that its message is that the microgeneration agenda has come of age. That agenda has been pulled from the fringes of politics and the energy debate into the mainstream. That is not only because of climate change, but because of how technology is advancing and how the consumer's interest is now about becoming more involved, rather than just being a passive recipient of energy. The rising cost of old fossil fuels means that people are becoming more energy-efficient and want to play a more active role in energy production.
	The Bill is incredibly timely. It says to the Government that, for a long time, other voices—from the Conservative party and their own Benches—have been calling for a far more radical and ambitious approach to microgeneration. Now it appears that the Government are joining that consensus, and that is very welcome. In particular, they have accepted the need for feed-in tariffs to change the economics of microgeneration and create the incentives to push the issues forward. However, it is not enough for the Government to accept the agenda—they have to grab it and get on with it.
	The Bill builds on the success of the Planning and Energy Bill, which was brought to the House last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), and on previous work in the Government's Energy Bill and the microgeneration strategy. This Bill says that we should try to make real progress now, before it is too late—before people become cynical and start thinking that this is all just another exercise in tilting the status quo with further incremental changes to existing patterns of energy use.
	The Bill might be modest, but as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, it contains important measures that, we hope, could have a disproportionate impact on energy users, energy consumption and opportunities for consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, it is not just a technical measure; we must not lose sight of the opportunities that it will present for consumers and businesses. There are huge opportunities for the microgeneration sector to become a much larger employer and an engine of growth in the energy sector. It can create new, long-lasting, satisfying jobs through which people can build careers and support families—the sort of jobs of which we want to see more in the 21st century. We do not just want to see the UK as an attractive place to deploy microgeneration equipment and technology. We want it to be an economy in which it makes sense to build such equipment and commercialise the research and development. If the Government are responsive, the Bill will go a long way towards making that happen. I hope that the Minister will rise to the opportunity that the Bill gives him and his Government to get with the programme and join the consensus in the Commons.

Simon Hughes: The top of a music score often includes in brackets a composer's instruction such as "With enthusiasm", "With fury" and so on. I want to join in expressing enthusiasm for the Bill.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for promoting the Bill and for his work on environmental and green issues over many years. He is not a late arrival on the scene. Colleagues from all parties pay tribute to him for his work: he has understood for many years, as some of us have tried to do, the importance of such issues. The measure is another manifestation of that understanding.
	I have always been a great fan of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He has been fantastic in his advocacy of green issues. In his core contribution, he made the central point that the Bill is about returning energy and environmental policies to people, individuals and communities, which is where they used to be. We sometimes forget that the great 19th century successes happened not because the Government in Westminster and Whitehall organised the energy industry, but because the villages, towns and cities had municipal initiatives. They were driven by the pride in Manchester, Nottingham, Guildford—if it was big enough then—and in my part of London, in the old boroughs of Bermondsey, Camberwell and Southwark. People wanted to do their own thing and they were proud that the water or electricity company they used was theirs. It meant that people were in it together.
	Such a policy had two other benefits. First, it made everybody responsible—people had to think through the implications. Secondly, it educated everybody. People understood what farmers, environmentalists and many in the rural community understand: lights do not go on because one presses a switch; it is a process that depends on our planet and our harnessing energy wisely. The Bill will return us to understanding what we need to do to ensure that the planet is safe and to avert the risk which we all know exists. That is the context for the measure.
	On a day when we all woke up to unhelpful news about politics and Parliament, we are discussing far more important issues than those that led this morning's news. There is significant agreement between all the main parties about those issues, and I note that the list of private Members' Bills on the Order Paper includes four that deal with the environment and energy. Apart from the measure that we are considering, there is the Land Use (Garden Protection etc) Bill, the Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill and the Renewable Content Obligation Bill.
	It is no accident that, when Back Benchers introduce Bills, they are often what could be described as "get on with it" measures. The science urges us to go further and faster than Governments have gone, and colleagues from all parties are saying, "Please get on with it." I therefore hope that the Minister, whom we respect greatly and who is hugely committed to his work—I have worked with him in his many guises in many Departments over the years—will be positive and enthusiastic when he responds. Let us get on with it.
	There are two coincidences today apart from that of the four measures on similar subjects. Today is the deadline for responses to the Government's heat and energy-saving strategy consultation. For those who thought that they might respond, today is the day. I hope that the debate will be perceived partly as a response to the consultation, because the contributions relate specifically to what the Government asked people to respond to. The consultation document states:
	"The consultation recognises that the upfront cost of energy efficiency in microgeneration measures is likely to be a barrier to greater uptake. The policy proposals outlined look to remove this barrier and get people to act now."
	There is a need to remove barriers, take away disincentives and give incentives. The Bill would do all that.
	The other coincidence today is that Which? has produced a report about how confusing energy tariffs are. We all know that they are a nightmare for most people. Seven in 10 people find the number of gas and electricity tariffs available confusing. Conversely, if people have their own wind turbine, heat pump and so on, and supply energy for not only their home, school, industrial estate, village or town, but sell something to the system—thereby contributing—that is not confusing. People have no difficulty in understanding that. It is exactly what people want and need.
	My colleagues and I support the Bill. My predecessor in the job, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) sends his apologies; he cannot be here today. He is a sponsor of the measure, which is therefore supported by our Front Benchers and has been since its inception. I have a micro concern, about which I would like an amendment in Committee, but I shall outline that shortly.
	Clause 2 states:
	"The principal purpose of this Act is to promote green energy."
	It makes clear what constitutes green energy and that the Bill is about energy from renewables or small-scale low-carbon sources. It also includes energy efficiency provisions—another important part of the equation. The Bill says clearly that the Government should get on with the microgeneration strategy that was included in the Energy Act 2008—it was a bit late in the day, but we got there eventually—but which has not yet been implemented. In effect, the Bill says, "Please, Parliament decided that it wanted this to happen. Let's move quickly now, rather than slowly."
	The Bill makes clear the sort of things that everybody can do. They are easy to understand, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said, although sometimes they are a bit harder to deliver, because of the technology, the supply chain or whatever. The Bill is about increasing the number of microgeneration systems in existing buildings, having a fiscal regime that effectively promotes microgeneration, ensuring that feed-in tariffs work easily and are not difficult and ensuring an incentive for renewable heat. All those things produce the benefits that we all know about. They produce sustainable communities and enhance community cohesion, whether in big cities, such as Nottingham or London, or in small villages in Cornwall, Surrey, Cambridgeshire, where the constituency that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) represents is situated, Cheshire or wherever. Those things also create and sustain green jobs—indeed, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of jobs are involved; one needs only to look at Germany or other countries that have led the way—and they help to reduce the burdens that create energy poverty, which adds to the poverty that we know about.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey made it clear that we have to do something about the planning barriers that get in the way. The Government have understood that we need to lift the burdens—not to allow abuse of the planning system, but to ensure that things that the farmer, smallholder or householder would naturally do do not involve having to jump through lots of planning hoops. That is important, whether we are talking about domestic premises or a farm, or whatever.
	Also, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that people who do those things, thereby contributing to their good health and wealth, and to the health of the community and the planet, will not be financially disincentivised. He also made it clear that their doing those things will not add to their burdens, and that they will not end up paying a bigger council tax bill or whatever. We have to encourage people, not discourage them, and the tighter their budgets, the more important it is that we not discourage them.

Mike O'Brien: We intend to announce it by the summer break. We are working through some quite complex issues and I hope that we will be able not only to revitalise the broader renewables agenda and ensure that that is taken forward, but to revitalise the microgeneration agenda and ensure that that is taken forward. There is quite a bit more work still to do, and if we are to take this forward with the accelerating speed that I referred to, we need to ensure that some of these ideas are thought through. It will be before the summer, but I will not give a specific date at the moment.
	Clause 1 is an interpretation clause, which I am fairly relaxed about, but it may require amendment to take account of subsequent changes. We can accommodate the clause, but minor amendments may be required.
	Clause 2 frames the Bill, setting out its principal purpose, which is to promote green energy. In the Bill, green energy means energy generated from renewable or sustainable small-scale local sources, and energy efficiency measures. The Government are fully committed to promoting green energy and will continue to do so. During the past 12 months a considerable amount of work has been done on consultations to bring forward later this year the strategies to which I referred to help the UK to meet its share of the EU 2020 renewable targets, to ensure our energy security, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to play our part in tackling climate change.
	As I said, this work will require a radical shift in reducing the consumption of energy and in the take-up of renewable and low-carbon energy technologies. Promotion of green energy and providing householders, communities and business with incentives and the information to play their part will be an integral part of the strategies that we will bring forward.
	The Energy Act 2008 provides for the introduction of the feed-in tariff and a renewable heat incentive, so we now have the powers to bring forward effective incentives to encourage the take-up of microgeneration technologies. We still intend to consult this year and we hope to do so in the run-up to the summer on the detail of feed-in tariffs, and later in the year, perhaps at the turn of the year, we will consider the renewable heat incentive, so that we have a package of policies to revitalise take-up.
	We will seek to retain clause 2, but it will be made clear that the definition of green energy relates only to this Bill, and we may need to tighten it slightly. As we have said, green energy is a term that is often used more widely, so we do not want to give it a legal definition that restricts it to microgeneration or more narrow aspects. However, we are happy in principle to retain the clause and to ensure that we have a definition with which the hon. Member for East Surrey agrees.
	Clause 3 involves the revision of microgeneration strategy and requires the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the commencement of the section, to
	"publish a revised microgeneration strategy...under section 82...of the Energy Act 2004"
	and, before doing so, to
	"invite comments on the draft...strategy"
	from stakeholders.
	According to the clause, the strategy should include measures to increase the number of microgeneration installations in existing buildings, financial and fiscal measures that will ensure the cost-effective of green energy and measures to promote the effective implementation of feed-in tariffs for small-scale generation of electricity established under part 2 of the Energy Act 2008.
	The Government have already addressed most of issues detailed in the clause. For instance, work on "Heat Call for Evidence" and the heat and energy saving strategy shows that microgeneration heat technologies have a role to play in de-carbonising domestic heating; and, we have said that the consultations on the renewable energy strategy and the heat and energy saving strategy will help to inform our decisions on how we support microgeneration. Given the parliamentary timetable, if the Bill is passed it will probably be enacted in about October, although that is very difficult to predict, and by then much of what it calls for will probably be well under way. The question is, can we include in the clause what we plan to do in any event? With a bit of redrafting, I think that we can. There is no massive difference between what we and the hon. Gentleman want, so, with a bit of redrafting, I think that we can get the clause into a mutually acceptable shape that has the broad support of this House and the other place. As part of our work over the summer, we believe that bringing forward a statement on our actions and policies will provide a lot of reassurance to the microgeneration industry.
	The Bill also seeks to increase the number of installations on existing buildings by means of financial and fiscal incentives and measures to promote the effective implementation of feed-in tariffs. I have already indicated our position on feed-in tariffs, and we hope to consult on that in due course. However, we are reluctant to have a vague commitment to financial measures, so we want to be much more specific about what we will do. That is one matter on which we need discussions, because, as we know, once we put a measure into statute, all sorts of things can happen with people running off to the courts, saying, "Does it mean this or does it mean that?" We need to be very clear about what we mean by the provision, and, although I am not sure that there will be a great deal of difficulty with it, let us just ensure that we reach a position with which the Government and the hon. Gentleman are content. The feed-in tariffs provide a basis for moving forward on much of that work, and I hope that the renewable heat incentive does, too.
	I must mention devolution, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, I need to clarify the Bill's scope. He is quite right that the Bill applies to England and, therefore, does not have broader applicability, because, in relation to this clause, microgeneration encompasses the generation of not only electricity, which is a reserved matter, but renewable heat, which is a devolved matter. We believe that what the clause seeks to achieve could happen in the context of the renewable energy and the heat and energy saving strategies, and that a suitable amendment could be found to ensure that the strategy in the clause works alongside and within the context of the broader strategies. We are therefore prepared to support an amended clause to signal our commitment to microgeneration.
	Clause 4 would commit the Government to carrying out a review of development orders with a view to extending permitted development to a range of renewable energy equipment installed on non-domestic premises, including agricultural land. I gather that the clause has the support of the National Farmers Union and the CLA, the Country Land and Business Association. Permitted development rights allow certain types of minor development to be carried out without specific planning consent from local planning authorities. Secondary legislation relating to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—namely, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended—sets out these rights. In May 2007, the Government set out in their White Paper "Planning for a Sustainable Future" their intention to extend those permitted development rights wherever possible, with the right safeguards in place—that is an important caveat.
	The objective has been to unclog the planning system and encourage the generation of renewable energy by home owners and non-householders alike. The Killian Pretty review of the planning application system in November 2008 endorsed those ideas. One of its key recommendations for reforming the system to make it more efficient and proportionate was to reduce the number of minor applications that require full planning permission.
	Following publication of the White Paper, the Government undertook four major reviews of permitted development. One considered the potential for extending permitted development rights to domestic microgeneration and to other non-domestic renewables. On the basis of the conclusions of the domestic review, we extended permitted development rights to a range of domestic equipment in April 2008. Subject to certain restrictions, home owners can now install solar panels, for example, without having to incur the cost and work involved in submitting a planning application. We want to do the same for businesses and institutions such as schools, hospitals and community groups. That is why we are considering the recommendations from the non-domestic review and we intend to conclude a set of proposals for consultation in the summer.
	The clause makes special mention of agricultural land. I can confirm that special rights for agricultural installations of microgeneration equipment will be included in the Government's proposals. The clause requires the Government to carry on with their intended programme of work and to report as soon as reasonably practical. We accept that. However, it may be possible to improve the clause. As I mentioned earlier, in April we introduced permitted development rights for a range of domestic equipment.
	What we have not been able to do to date is include, within the fold of permitted development, the issue of micro wind turbines and air source heat pumps. The difficulty is that those technologies make a noise and have the potential for negative impact on others. In a moment, I will come to clause 5, which commits the Government to moving forward on those types of renewables. However, as a general point, pure permitted development may not always be the answer; there may be other options. There is a possible alternative to having to seek full planning permission by completing a planning application and to being able to proceed, by way of permitted development, without recourse to a planning authority. It is called prior approval.
	Prior approval works on the basis that consent from a local authority is deemed to have been given if nothing is heard from that authority after a certain period. It is particularly of benefit to farmers, who can carry on their business with minimal recourse to their local authorities. We have been looking at the use of prior approval as well as other mechanisms that would match the level of control required to the type of development in question. I propose that, rather than simply considering the potential for permitted development, the clause should allow the Government to consider a range of planning options that will assist renewable energy equipment, including seeing whether we can find ways in which prior approval can help take the issues forward.
	I return to the point that I raised with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. Local people should be able to object to a planning process if they feel concerns about a development of significance to their local community. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for East Surrey when he said that he had no wish to prevent local communities from ensuring that they can raise genuine concerns. I entirely accept that point and hope that we can find a way of changing the clause so that those points can be taken on board.

Mike O'Brien: That is a good point, but we need to be careful. Officers tend to inherit these delegated powers and councillors assume that there is not much that they can do about it, whereas they can do quite a lot about what they delegate to their officers and what they do not. It is the councillors' responsibility to ensure that the officers are doing only what the council wants them to do, and if they think that there is an area where they should not have delegated powers, then they should not have them. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that local communities are not subjected to something being put in by a landowner, the officers using their delegated powers, and the thing getting through before the local community even knows it is happening. That is not satisfactory, particularly if it is something that the local community would be concerned about.
	I can tell the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that anaerobic digestion would be included in the consultation.
	Noise is an area of concern as regards ground source heat pumps and wind turbines, and we want to ensure that we consider how that is dealt with. We hope that we will be able to get a consultation out very shortly in the coming months. In all probability, that should be well under way before the Bill is taken through. The consultation that we undertook last year related to 37 dB, but we need to be much more ambitious in this case. I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), and we are content to consult, among other things, on 45 dB, which is what the industry has been asking for. There are concerns about this; let there be no mistake about that. We also have to take account of the fact that the World Health Organisation is looking into noise levels, and that needs to be factored into how we would achieve this.
	In a sense, this issue has been hanging around for too long. It needs to be resolved, and my hon. Friend and I want it resolved as soon as it reasonably can be. We should therefore be looking to oblige the Government not so much to consult as to legislate, perhaps within six months of the Bill going through. It would be more realistic if clause 5 were to refer to granting permitted development rights within six months, not three months, of the Act being passed.
	The clause refers to the schedule, which sets various conditions relating to microgeneration. The Government consider that the schedule contains inappropriate details, and we cannot agree to it as it is, but some parts of it have merit. Those parts, or at least the issues raised in the schedule, can be included in the consultation. However, we will ask that the schedule as it currently stands be removed.
	Clause 6 requires any increase
	"in the value of a property arising from the installation of"
	a green energy measure
	"or a microgeneration system after the day on which this Act is passed"
	to be
	"disregarded for the purpose of assessing council tax or non-domestic rates"
	on that property. I shall explain what is already being done. Council tax is a property tax, based primarily on the value of a person's home. There are no plans to link the level of council tax that a person has to pay to how energy-efficient their property is. I am told that making changes or improvements to a property that increase its value cannot result in a higher council tax band until the property is sold or any general revaluation of properties takes place. An increase in the band will take place only if the alterations add sufficient value to the property to move it into a higher band.
	The value of a dwelling depends on a number of factors, including its size, lay-out, character and locality. Generally, any improvements made to a property will not be taken into account for banding purposes unless, as I said, the property is sold. Even then, the alterations will not necessarily mean an increase in the council tax band. That will happen only if the alterations have added sufficient value—reflecting 1991 values—to push the property into a higher band. Some local authorities, with assistance from British Gas, have provided a one-off rebate on council tax bills to council tax payers who have taken certain measures to improve energy efficiency in their homes.
	Microgeneration equipment is already ignored in the assessment of rateable value for non-domestic rates until the next revaluation. The exemption was introduced on 1 October 2008 and will also apply to any 2010 rating list, so that equipment fitted between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 will not be assessed for rates until 1 April 2015. I am told that it is unlikely that fitting microgeneration equipment at business premises would lead to a reassessment of their rateable value. Nevertheless, the exemption was introduced to remove uncertainty and provide clarity and reassurance to businesses working to reduce their carbon footprint.
	The Government therefore do not believe that clause 6 would make much difference in practice. The council tax system already disregards improvements until a property is sold, and then they only matter if they add sufficient value to push the property into a higher council tax band. Such an impact would rarely result from the presence of microgeneration equipment. The legislative framework for council tax is complex and lengthy, and it is dealt with separately in different legislation. We see no merit in adding to that complexity, so the Government will not support the clause being in the Bill. I hope that to get the rest of the Bill through we can reach agreement that the clause be deleted, given the background information that I have just provided that there are some safeguards already in place that will hopefully help the microgeneration industry.
	I am conscious of the time, and I want to give the hon. Member for East Surrey the opportunity to respond. I thank him very much for bringing the Bill to the House and hope that it will have a successful passage based upon my comments about the Government's position. We would like to get a Bill like this through. I know that the hon. Gentleman would, and we know from the debate that most Members who have spoken would. I believe that that broadly reflects the views of the House as a whole, so I hope that with a good deal of collaborative work in the coming month or so, we will be able to take the Bill through Committee, amend it and bring it out the other side successfully.

Peter Ainsworth: I am aware of the time and of the fact that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary has been sitting behind him patiently waiting to introduce his Bill. I suspect that he had no option but to be patient this morning, and I shall therefore be brief.
	The debate has been interesting and worth while, with contributions of high quality. Three themes emerged: empowerment and ownership, about which so many hon. Members spoke; the need to engage with people, and the Government's acceptance of the need to move on to enable people to engage with the agenda. We also heard about energy security. All sorts of good things have come together.
	I started by saying that the Bill was modest, but hon. Members' generosity has persuaded me that I might have been excessively modest in my description. The measure is capable of moving significantly towards the greener, safer way of producing energy that we all support. I am delighted to see clear evidence of growing cross-party consensus about the sort of measures that we need to take if we are to modernise our energy systems properly and make them fit for purpose in the 21st century.
	I am extremely grateful to all those who took part in the debate. I listened to the Minister with great care. He made it clear that he and I have had conversations about the Bill and his comments today coincided entirely with my understanding of where those conversations would lead. I look forward to continuing to work with him positively to ensure that the "guts", as he put it, of the Bill end up on the statute book as soon as possible. That is what industry needs and the public expect.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Jim Cunningham: With the leave of the House, may I say that we have had an interesting debate today, with many good contributions exploring the Bill, whether hon. Members agreed with it or not. During the debate I became conscious of the danger that my Bill would pile more legislation on teachers. It was pointed out earlier that much legislation these days affects teachers, and it was not the intention of my Bill to impose a greater burden on them.
	The Minister has honoured the commitments that she gave me in private conversations, so I do not intend to pursue my Bill. Given that my hon. Friend has made a number of concessions and that considerable progress has been made, campaigners have achieved quite a lot today. They have forced the House to have a good debate on the issues, and they have gained considerably from what the Minister said. If they read  Hansard, they will see exactly what they have achieved.
	My role was merely to bring the Bill before the House. More important for campaigners and for the House is that the assurances given by the Government today are followed through. If they are not, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be one of the first to remind her.
	Once again, I thank all the campaigners involved and Members on both Opposition Front Benches. Members of the Opposition parties have treated me very courteously, as have my colleagues. A number of hon. Members were unable to be present today. That is understandable, as Friday is a constituency day and Members have heavy commitments.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion withdrawn.

Stewart Jackson: I am aware that time is short. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing his place in the private Members' ballot and bringing forward this important debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who initiated similar debates in the past.
	Because of the lack of time, it is not appropriate to go into the full background of the situation regarding garden and backland development. Suffice it to say that one of the criticisms of the Bill is that it has too narrow a focus and does not look at the wider context of the Government's policies on garden and backland development. It is interesting that the concept of special regard to the desirability of conserving gardens and urban green spaces is a loose one. Were the Bill to proceed, I hope that it would be looked at more robustly in Committee.
	As we are short of time, it might be worth mentioning that the policy that existed prior to 2000, which was enunciated by the last Conservative Government in 1992 under planning policy guidance note 3, did not include any definition of gardens as brownfield, and neither did it contain density targets. Indeed, the guidance discouraged residential infill where inappropriate and gave a broad discretion for councils to protect the character of their locality. It stated:
	"Where authorities consider that the pressure for development and redevelopment is such as to threaten seriously the character of an established residential area which ought to be protected, they may include density and other policies in their local plans."
	It added:
	"Where the planning authority considers that existing densities in a particular area should not be exceeded, a policy to that effect in the local plan can help to deter the speculative demolition of sound housing."
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Conservative party, if elected to government, is committed to altering the rules on brownfield development, returning them to the position in 1992 . With that, I support the Bill.